FILm vs DIGITAL

[Roberts Eyes]

Once you drum scan it, it's not film anymore, it's digital. The high resolution of film that you speak of is dependant on digital technology, so ask yourself again, where that resolution comes from.

You hit that one right on the head.

 

[Mumfandc]

The high resolution of film that you speak of is dependant on digital technology, so ask yourself again, where that resolution comes from.

Well, it's definately not coming out of a digital camera at the moment.

 

[ksmattfish]

Once you drum scan it, it's not film anymore, it's digital. The high resolution of film that you speak of is dependant on digital technology, so ask yourself again, where that resolution comes from.

While yes, once you scan film it does become a digital file, the act of scanning offers no increase in fine details or accutance or actual information captured. After the exposure with both film and digital you are stuck with whatever information you have captured.

Yes you could go in to Photoshop or physically paint in new information, but it did not exist at the time of the capture. You can run fancy noise removing software, fractels, etc... on a digital capture to create big enlargments, but none of this increases the actual information content of the image, it corrects artifacts that we perceive as undesirable. I can run that same software on the 32000x40000 scans from a 4x5 neg (or 8000 x 12000 scans from a 35mm neg), and it would allow me to create proportionally larger enlargements compared to a 4992 x 3328 capture from a Canon Mark II 1Ds. I still would require film to get that initial amount of information in a capture, even if I know I'm going to digitize it in the long run.

Film is wonderful, digital is wonderful, but the fact is that digital is easier and more convenient; that's why it's so popular. In my opinion, that's a very good reason to choose digital as a beginner. Later if you are interested in film you can check it out too. By then they will probably have DSLRs getting huge captures anyway.

 

[Mumfandc]

Film is wonderful, digital is wonderful, but the fact is that digital is easier and more convenient; that's why it's so popular.

Speaking of which, it boggles me how people who say they are complete "beginners" are quick to eyeball and save-up for $2,000 high end DSLRs. If you have the dough, then by all means get one...but I've seen this many times on photosig.com, Pbase.com etc.

There are plenty of highly rated "prosumer" digi-cams which have fallen below $400, even $300 which are sufficient enough to obtain superb pictures of dead flowers in the backyard.

 

[Digital Matt]

Matt, I understand what your saying. Yes, you need the film still. I'm not discounting the importance of film in that equation. I'm just questioning, and maybe you can answer this definitively. Can you get the same resolution from printing a negative traditionally from an enlarger as you can from drum scanning it, (not making any changes to the file resolution), and then reprinting through today's laser photograpic printers at 300 DPI and above?

If the answer is no, then my statement has truth to it. The comparison of film and digital is really a comparison of digital and digital.

 

[Corry]

None of these post address InSpring’s question.

This is not a digital issue. It’ a shutter issue.

Your camera does not have any shutter & works more like a video camera that a film camera. Most SLR both film and digital have focal plane shutter. Focal plane shutter help stop motion. Not going to try and explain this now because any good photography book should do a better job that I would do. I get home will post a quote for one of my books, Maybe

IMO Way to do this
1) without a flash get a better camera
2) take one photo w/ flash and another with out merge them together with layers in PS

That's because she edited it...her question was originally about what is better, film or digital.

 

[Digital Matt]

Well, it's definately not coming out of a digital camera at the moment.

It's going through a digital process, so aren't you really just comparing two different types of digital photography? If we are talking about resolution, we are talking about a print, since that's how the detail is resolved, and perceived, and if you are drum scanning a negative, and printing it, the end result, the print, IS coming out of something digital.

 

[Roberts Eyes]

This debate is going to keep going and going and going just like the Energizer Bunny. We also can look at it this way, if you are a photographer that is using a film camera or a digital camera you are both going to make the same amount of money in the long run.

 

[ksmattfish]

The thing I still wonder about is, many photography majors in college are still being taught the traditional film and darkroom tehniques. By when is this going to become obsolete?

The reason for this is that the professors don't know digital yet; many of them are confused with the new electronic, auto-focus 35mm SLRs. It'll happen when the new digital generation grows up and takes over the photography departments. Film photography will move over to the art department and the photo history classes.

I've taken a few college courses on digital photography from old school film guys, and the instructors were horrible. The basics are the same, but it seemed to me that we spent a lot more time learning how to run the computers, and I already know that. Beginners will probably learn more on forums like this one, where there are folks using the new technology everyday.

 

[Mumfandc]

It's going through a digital process, so aren't you really just comparing two different types of digital photography? If we are talking about resolution, we are talking about a print, since that's how the detail is resolved, and perceived, and if you are drum scanning a negative, and printing it, the end result, the print, IS coming out of something digital.

I already know what you're trying to point out...

A) "ANALOG FILM camera--->scanner--->computer--->DIGITAL print"
vs.
B) "DIGITAL camera--->computer--->DIGITAL print"

Seems like I'm focusing more on the left side of the equation, and you the right side. The original question "Which is better film CAMERA vs. digital CAMERA?"...(subjective question)

I'm trying to focus more on the MEANS of obtaining photographic image data. While you're focusing on the ANALOG (Optical) vs. DIGITAL output of the image.

 

[Soulreaver]

I think film at this point is still much greater in terms of resolution compared to digital. I have a Mamiya RB67 Pro-S, and If you take a 6x7cm transparency drum-scanned at 4000dpi (this is the film grain level, and some drum scanners even go up to 11,000dpi optical res.), you're looking around 9449 x 11,024 pixels. Of course, drum scans can be rather expensive.

Funny your saying that, just today I saw a mamiya 645 for about Usd 1,000.It was used, but almost new, couldn't see a scratch or mark on the body.
Is this a good camera?Hassel was cheaper, about 870 dolars or so...

I once saw a digital back that had 108Mp, but according to that table still not as good as 35mm on slow film...

On the other hand the biggest newspapers in my city are going digital, its so much more practical.There is also less and less variety in film equipment here. (lol, there wasnt that much variety to begin with )

 

[Digital Matt]

If a=b and b=c, then a=c.

The equation is digital = digital, otherwise, it's apples and oranges.

I'm not arguing that one is better than the other. I'm tired of debating it actually, and hearing everyone talk about the science of photography in relation to the medium. My final words are, art is art.

 

[Mumfandc]

Funny your saying that, just today I saw a mamiya 645 for about Usd 1,000.It was used, but almost new, couldn't see a scratch or mark on the body.
Is this a good camera?Hassel was cheaper, about 870 dolars or so...

What kind of Mamiya 645 was it? Auto-focus? What Hassy? If you go to keh.com, they usually have very good deals on used equipment. However, they're not very detailed when it comes to describing the condition of the stuff they sell (they don't show pics of the specific item for sale either).

But I think MOST people are very satisfied with even their "bargain" rated items ("bargain" usually means the stuff looks like it took a good beating over the years).

 

[Soulreaver]

What kind of Mamiya 645 was it? Auto-focus? What Hassy? If you go to keh.com, they usually have very good deals on used equipment. However, they're not very detailed when it comes to describing the condition of the stuff they sell (they don't show pics of the specific item for sale either).

But I think MOST people are very satisfied with even their "bargain" rated items ("bargain" usually means the stuff looks like it took a good beating over the years).

Thanks for the answer.
I am not in the US,so shipping and taxes would raise the price a lot.Much better to buy locally.
I dont know what kind of 645 it was, looked like recent model, that is, not ancient looking .Dont know if it was AF or not.
The camera was quite new looking, only it is an used one.Unless it has a hidden deffect or is broken I would say its a very nice camera.
I just went inomamiya's site, and it looks like 645E, only it had the same buttons on the lower front side that 645AFD has, but not that lateral extension.Weird...
But even if its not AF, its still a good camera, isn't it?

cheers

 

[Unimaxium]

Film is wonderful, digital is wonderful, but the fact is that digital is easier and more convenient; that's why it's so popular. In my opinion, that's a very good reason to choose digital as a beginner. Later if you are interested in film you can check it out too. By then they will probably have DSLRs getting huge captures anyway.

Well I think it depends on where you are intending to go with photography. If you're hoping to be professional or just like a semi-pro or good hobbyist, then it might be a good idea to start with film to understand all the basics of photography. It will help to teach you to think carefully about every image, since you only have about 24-36 shots before you have to spend another $3-6 for film. After all, digital photography (especially with DSLRs) is still rooted in the fundamentals of film photography, with aperture, shutter, and ISO ratings working similarly between the two mediums. So if you learn with film, chances are you'll know pretty much all you'll need to expose digital photos well if you change formats. And since you are used to exposing with film, you might still think carefully about your digital images as you capture them. Then, once you learn a little about post-processing digital images, it will be easier to make them better in Photoshop.